Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 3:01 PM Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 5:43 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Oh --- looks like numeric generate_series() already throws error for
>>> this, so we should just make the timestamp variants do the same.
> This came up once before
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqQUuUh_W3s55eSiMnt901Ud3meF7f_96yPkKcqfd1ZaMg%40mail.gmail.com
Oh! I'd totally forgotten that thread, but given that discussion,
and particularly the counterexample at
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/16807.1456091547%40sss.pgh.pa.us
it now feels to me like maybe this change was a mistake. Perhaps
instead of the committed change, we ought to go the other way and
rip out the infinity checks in numeric generate_series().
In view of tomorrow's minor-release wrap, there is not time for
the sort of more leisured discussion that I now think this topic
needs. I propose to revert eafdf9de0 et al before the wrap,
and think about this at more length before doing anything.
regards, tom lane
